Eddo36 Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/tech/innovation/marines-amphibious-vehicle/index.html The one in the picture there is just a prototype. Real one will be twice the size.
Gromnir Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/tech/innovation/marines-amphibious-vehicle/index.html The one in the picture there is just a prototype. Real one will be twice the size. for a beach assault craft, the wheelhouse looks a bit... exposed. also, is troops and equipment actual 'posed to disembark from the rear? potential needs to drive tanks and humvees and such towards water then circle around? the flippers look keen, but it not take a genius to recognize that there is some odd design choices that went into this thing. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Eddo36 Posted July 19, 2014 Author Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) for a beach assault craft, the wheelhouse looks a bit... exposed. also, is troops and equipment actual 'posed to disembark from the rear? potential needs to drive tanks and humvees and such towards water then circle around? the flippers look keen, but it not take a genius to recognize that there is some odd design choices that went into this thing. HA! Good Fun! This is just the prototype. The real version will have armor and machinegun. Edited July 19, 2014 by Eddo36
Gromnir Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) for a beach assault craft, the wheelhouse looks a bit... exposed. also, is troops and equipment actual 'posed to disembark from the rear? potential needs to drive tanks and humvees and such towards water then circle around? the flippers look keen, but it not take a genius to recognize that there is some odd design choices that went into this thing. HA! Good Fun! This is just the prototype. The real version will have armor and machinegun. its a bass ackwards prototype. a machine gun will no doubt be much comfort to the pilot who is much exposed to enemy machine gun fire... and regardless, the thing is backwards. maybe it were purpose driving in reverse for video? dunno. HA! Good Fun! ps am s'posing it could be a proof-of-concept prototype wherein all they were testing were the propulsion system, but that seems kinda extreme. do that kinda thing in a bathtub, or with something much smaller, no? Edited July 19, 2014 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Eddo36 Posted July 19, 2014 Author Posted July 19, 2014 its a bass ackwards prototype. a machine gun will no doubt be much comfort to the pilot who is much exposed to enemy machine gun fire... and regardless, the thing is backwards. maybe it were purpose driving in reverse for video? dunno. HA! Good Fun! Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS
Elerond Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 What I understand it is not meant to be such assault vehicle that will take hostile beach, but instead a heavy carrier that brings tanks and other heavy land vehicles to beach after it's already secured or at least mostly secured.
Gromnir Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) its a bass ackwards prototype. a machine gun will no doubt be much comfort to the pilot who is much exposed to enemy machine gun fire... and regardless, the thing is backwards. maybe it were purpose driving in reverse for video? dunno. HA! Good Fun! Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS am thinking you miss our point about the machine gun. if your beach landing is contested (and who needs an armoured vehicle if it ain't contested,) then having a machine gun defending your exposed wheelhouse is not gonna be particularly reassuring to the pilot. honestly, this is common sense stuff. "What I understand it is not meant to be such assault vehicle that will take hostile beach, but instead a heavy carrier that brings tanks and other heavy land vehicles to beach after it's already secured or at least mostly secured." ... am thinking Gromnir is even more confused by the need for this vehicle if that is the case. oh well, i guess if the project keeps folks employed... HA! Good Fun! Edited July 19, 2014 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Elerond Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 am thinking Gromnir is even more confused by the need for this vehicle if that is the case. oh well, i guess if the project keeps folks employed... HA! Good Fun! That is reality with many projects in armament industry. For example Finnish Navy used tens of millions of dollars to develop assault hovercraft and when it was ready they realized that it didn't had any real function, even though it exceeded all requirements that Navy put for it, as they realized that Missile Boats worked better in tasks where they intended use them and in end Finnish Navy didn't found any use for them and disassembled only working unit that was produced when they didn't find any buyers for it. 1
Walsingham Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) Of course there's a need for it. The marines do opposed beach landings _by definition_. Replacing the command position with an armoured turret is one option. A far more sensible one would be a an armoured sensor periscope, and a remote turret. But these aren't nearly as hard to get right as the mobility of something which has to travel over everything except clean air. Hence the trials are showing the bloody thing will move. Edited July 19, 2014 by Walsingham 1 "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Nepenthe Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Agreeing with Gromnir, but like Wals I'm thinking this one's mostly to test out the propulsion/pump money out of the decision makers. Or it's just that they haven't had a proper contested beachhead since, well, er, Incheon, and I'm not sure even it qualifies (and we'd go back to Overlord)... You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that? Reapercussions
Gromnir Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Agreeing with Gromnir, but like Wals I'm thinking this one's mostly to test out the propulsion/pump money out of the decision makers. Or it's just that they haven't had a proper contested beachhead since, well, er, Incheon, and I'm not sure even it qualifies (and we'd go back to Overlord)... the thing is, if it is simple a proof-of-concept prototype for the propulsion system, wouldn't you mention that point? maybe you is correct and us navy/marines is so unconcerned 'bout contested beaches that they can have pilot's wheelhouse as exposed as possible and makes so troops and vehicles disembark from the bloody back of the silly thing. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Nepenthe Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Agreeing with Gromnir, but like Wals I'm thinking this one's mostly to test out the propulsion/pump money out of the decision makers. Or it's just that they haven't had a proper contested beachhead since, well, er, Incheon, and I'm not sure even it qualifies (and we'd go back to Overlord)... the thing is, if it is simple a proof-of-concept prototype for the propulsion system, wouldn't you mention that point? maybe you is correct and us navy/marines is so unconcerned 'bout contested beaches that they can have pilot's wheelhouse as exposed as possible and makes so troops and vehicles disembark from the bloody back of the silly thing. HA! Good Fun! It might have been to complex a concept for the person reporting. Certainly looks from the way its written. Or it's my other point. You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that? Reapercussions
Walsingham Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Agreeing with Gromnir, but like Wals I'm thinking this one's mostly to test out the propulsion/pump money out of the decision makers. Or it's just that they haven't had a proper contested beachhead since, well, er, Incheon, and I'm not sure even it qualifies (and we'd go back to Overlord)... the thing is, if it is simple a proof-of-concept prototype for the propulsion system, wouldn't you mention that point? You shouldn't have to point that out. Your objection is technical. But by the same token you should have the education and common sense to go to fourth base in your assessment. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Malcador Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Hard to not expose the pilot to fire in any lander, though, in the currently used LCACs it's pretty exposed too. But from searching around this does seem to be a demonstration of the propulsion system and has another round of development to go through. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Woldan Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) I love the perfectly flat, large side windows, imagine a RPG or 30mms hitting them. Pilot dead and the landing craft becomes floating prey. It doesn't look like it was designed to land on beaches with enemy forces shooting at them, which is a bit stupid for a military vehicle if you ask me. Edited July 21, 2014 by Woldan 1 I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet.
Malcador Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Not necessarily - they use trucks to transport goods that aren't designed to take AT rounds, for example, so not all military gear has to be set up to run through a battle zone. Not too sure what kind of glass can resist an RPG or 30mm cannon fire though - existing landing craft have that vulnerability, at least from a report from 1991 on them. And other forces will have to suppress defenders in these kinds of landings. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Gromnir Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 well, to be fair, it kinda needs to be a big target as it is riding almost entirely above water and will be carrying tanks and personnel. stuff like reefs and submerged obstacles is gonna be less o' a factor for this vehicle, which is fantastic. unfortunately, what makes it capable o' crawling over reefs and low walls 'n such will necessarily also give it a much more exposed profile... which is all the more reason you is gonna wanna protect the wheelhouse. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/US_Navy_060606-N-8154G-115_Two_Landing_Craft_Utilities_(LCU)_assigned_to_Amphibious_Craft_Unit_Two_(ACU-2),_rehearse_storming_the_beach_in_Curacao,_Netherlands_Antilles.jpg and again, the Biggest flaw is having exit at the back end o' the vehicle. seriously think 'bout the darn thing getting pinned down on the beach half out o' the water. your tanks and humvees is effective trapped, particular if you got a beach break... sea floor drops quickly. no matter how fancy those flippers is, you is gonna need assume that a nice and open, sandy beach with a gentle slope is gonna be Rare for contested beach landings. on the other hand, perhaps elerond and others is correct that the vehicle is not being designed with any notion o' a contested beach scenario. design is so that everybody has a nice leisurely trip so no soldier or marine gets feet wet. as we noted in our second post, if this thing is simply a proof-of-concept prototype for the propulsion system, we thinks it is silly to call it a prototype for a beach assault vehicle. is also kinda excessive for a proof-o-concept prototype, no? HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Woldan Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) Not necessarily - they use trucks to transport goods that aren't designed to take AT rounds, for example, so not all military gear has to be set up to run through a battle zone. Its called a beach assault vehicle tough. Assault stuff should be heavily armored and should not rely on backup alone. It carries material and tanks that can take multiple hits on the battlefield, but if you kill that joke of a carrier all of it sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Nah, I'm not going to buy any of those. Edited July 21, 2014 by Woldan I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet.
Malcador Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Well, was more to your point about military vehicles not being designed to be shot at with heavy weaponry being stupid, some things have expected roles. In this case, even though it's named assault, the current vehicles it's to replace don't exactly look extremely rugged - though testing states they can handle everything up to 30mm (I guess if they're firing tank guns at it, someone's not doing security well) - so maybe the final product will be rated up to that as well. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Gromnir Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Well, was more to your point about military vehicles not being designed to be shot at with heavy weaponry being stupid, some things have expected roles. In this case, even though it's named assault, the current vehicles it's to replace don't exactly look extremely rugged - though testing states they can handle everything up to 30mm (I guess if they're firing tank guns at it, someone's not doing security well) - so maybe the final product will be rated up to that as well. the current vehicle it is meant to replace (lcac) is designed for speed as much as anything else. arleigh burke class destroyers move at a good clip-- over 30 kn. the lcac tops out near 45kn (our knot to kph conversion is wonky... is that 70kph?) the flipper treadmill thingie will be a 20 kn vehicle. if you is half as fast, you ought to be better protected. HA! Good Fun! 1 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Nepenthe Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Well, was more to your point about military vehicles not being designed to be shot at with heavy weaponry being stupid, some things have expected roles. In this case, even though it's named assault, the current vehicles it's to replace don't exactly look extremely rugged - though testing states they can handle everything up to 30mm (I guess if they're firing tank guns at it, someone's not doing security well) - so maybe the final product will be rated up to that as well. the current vehicle it is meant to replace (lcac) is designed for speed as much as anything else. arleigh burke class destroyers move at a good clip-- over 30 kn. the lcac tops out near 45kn (our knot to kph conversion is wonky... is that 70kph?) the flipper treadmill thingie will be a 20 kn vehicle. if you is half as fast, you ought to be better protected. HA! Good Fun! 45 knots = 83kph. You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that? Reapercussions
Agiel Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) A Nautical Mile is also slightly above 6000ft, as opposed to 5280ft for a terrestrial mile. So take that into account for your conversions. Edited July 22, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Bester Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) So, let's recap: The objective of this machine is to carry troops from water to the ground, in a fast and secure way. Now let's see what we can gather from the video: - it's super slow on water and on ground - it's super big, will be spotted instantly and will attract fire just because of its size (easy target, hard to miss) - and despite the two previous points, it's got no armor Wow! Can't wait to see some grilled <I'm going to cut out the word out of fear of moderators> in that thing. Seems to me that the real objective of this machine is to bury troops at sea. Edited July 22, 2014 by Bester IE Mod for Pillars of Eternity: link
Mor Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/tech/innovation/marines-amphibious-vehicle/index.html The one in the picture there is just a prototype. Real one will be twice the size. Interesting, although going only by the cover, its hard to imagine how this: Suppose to replace this:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now